Archimandrite Luke, Holy Trinity Seminary, Jordanville, NY

In the past few years the number of articles and books
published by Orthodox writers on the subject of marriage and
specifically marital relations has increased. The ideas expressed
in some of these works are not always consistent with Orthodox
Tradition. The essence of these ideas is the deification of
carnal relations, or, as some express it, the sanctification of
erotic desires. Authors claim that these desires can lead one to
Godto the realization of God within usthat such union is a reflection
of the Godhead.

These ideas are not original. They are found in pagan writings
and the works of Gnostics. They are very popular in the
philosophy of the New Age Movement. New Age philosophy believes
that the world is about to enter into a new period of existence,
a New Order in all areas of life. Our concern here is the
religion that will be the spiritual force in this New Age. The
movement can be defined as:

a new syncretistic working of
individuals and organizations dedicated to a mystical
interpretation of reality and the pursuit of occult practices
to enhance spirituality. Its followers range from those
seeking metaphysical experience to those searching for
enhanced human potential through a holistic view. The New Age
Movement represents a formidable social and spiritual
challenge for Christianity. This elect form of mysticism has
invaded such areas as business, education, psychology,
medicine, and religion. Because of the Movement's espousal of
psychic and spiritualistic phenomena, those who revere
Scripture must address the New Age wherever it intrudes. (Bob
Larson, Straight Answers on the New Age, Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers)

At first glance the overall atmosphere of New Age philosophy
appears to be one of tolerance and sincerity, but closer
investigation reveals otherwise. On the one hand, although any
religious practice or creed is acceptable for the New Age
movement, on the other, the New Age rigorously opposes any
attempt to promote one religious belief or philosophy as the
single true faith, especially Christianity which professes to be
the only path to salvation. The New Age movement believes
Christianity to be just one of many inner spiritual paths, all
leading to the same goal. New Agers try to convince us that the
reason for all the problems of the twentieth century (and the
past in general) lay in the unstable values of old religious,
political, and social systems. The search for answers, they
believe, must be outside of traditional religious thought (Priest
George, "The New Age" [in Russian], Pravoslavnaya
Rus, #24, 1996, p. 8).Thoseanswers,
they claim, are found in a more humane, less rigid approach to
questions concerning man, God, life, and death. In essence man,
according to New Age teaching, is better and more capable of
perfection than we assume; God is found everywhere, in all
religions and practices; through understanding our mystical
potential by Self-realization and the attainment of Higher
Consciousness, life can be a pleasurable spiritual experience;
and death is a wonderful entrance into "the light,"
union with a god who is much less demanding than we have been led
to believe. New Agers claim that man advances not by the process
of discernment, "testing the spirits," and moral
struggle, but through intuitive "knowing" and
"creativeness."

In order to illustrate the connection between the New Age
Movement and the nontraditional ideas of various Orthodox writers
we offer the following excerpts from various works with
commentary.

In an essay by Laura Jones entitled, "Made in the Image
of the Holy Trinity: Where Does Sex Fit into this Picture?",
found in the Moscow Patriarchate journal, One Church (vol.
XLVIII, no. 5, 1994), the author introduces her theme:

We can say that the life of the Triune God
is that of the eternal ecstasy of the three Divine Persons,
for ecstasy means a kind of going out from one's self
How then do we reflect the Divine ecstasy of the Three in
One? In sexual ecstasy one goes out of oneself to be
physically lost in another person. Spiritual writers utilize
erotic imagery very much, as also in Holy Scripture, to
describe the mystical ecstasy of being lost in God. Such a
correlation is also found in the traditions of non-Christian
religions where belief in the Holy Trinity is absent. In what
way must ours be an especially Trinitarian spirituality? How,
moreover, does such a spirituality transform our
understanding of our own, properly human, sexuality? (p. 166)

The author uses extensively the thoughts of an American
"mystic", Herbert Schwartz, in order to explain her
theory. She claims that with the proper knowledge of love,
sexuality, and the Triune God, one can attain to a higher
spiritual state. She writes, " when we use our minds
rightly, knowledge leads into love." Further, "This
knowledge is not something that we can attain by our
understanding alone. What we can do with our understanding is
seek after that which will unite us more intimately with God, for
it is within this union that God reveals Himself to us." She
instructs us that we must correct our understanding of love to
conform to a new definition, which she summarizes as follows:

So true love for another person is not mere
feeling, but feeling which derives from and is informed by
the very rational conviction that we are loved by God. The
joy this inspires is the rational ecstasy of that invincible
faith which has the power to move mountains (Mark 11:23).
(Jones, p. 169)

To clarify her concept she quotes her guide,
the mystic Schwartz: "Just as when man is overcome by sexual
desire everything else would be obliterated, so when you turn to
Jesus this way there is a supernatural obliteration of everything
else, and the more you do this the more you'll experience this
joy ." At this point she rightly poses the question,
"We may ask how this relates to sexual union ."
While passing over her answer, it is sufficient here to quote her
conclusion: "Rightly understood, true and holy conjugal
union does reflect the Spirit of the Word from on High. It is
like a mysterious love of the Father towards the Word
mysteriously begotten" (Jones, p. 169-170).

Knowledge as well as carnal union, both important to New
Agers, play a vital role in Mrs. Jones' spirituality. In the
book, Understanding the New Age, the author, Russell
Chandler, writes: "The New Age premise is that knowledge, or
gnosis, is the key to being awakened from our ignorance of
divinity. The slumbering 'Higher Self' can be roused. Creation
and humanity are simply 'elevated' to divine status through
personal transformation" (Russel Chandler, Understanding
the New Age, Dallas: Word Publishing, 1988, p. 32).

In the book, New Age Lies to Women (by Wanda Marrs,
Austin: Living Truth Publishers, 1989), the author quotes a
witch, Miriam Starhawk, who instructs that "sexuality is
sacred because it is a sharing of energy ." Retreats,
seminars, and courses on this subject are being introduced
throughout America and the world. The concept that carnal union
has a cleansing or purifying action and can lead to spiritual
states, even spiritual union with the divine ("the energy
that is the passion of God"), is a well known aspect of
pagan cults (Marrs, p. 58). The author of this informative book,
rightly determines that while ancient pagans "confused
fleshly desires with spiritual attainment," modern New Age
teachers also lift up the act of carnal union "from the
profane to higher levels of sublime spirituality" (Marrs, p.
65).

In contrast to the above teachings, the Holy Fathers
consistently warn us not to mingle the carnal with the spiritual,
for it interferes with spiritual growth. Bishop Ignatius
Brianchaninov writes the following about the union of the mind
with the heart (the goal of spiritual life, and the condition for
true prayer to God): "Not only does every sinful emotion and
every sinful thought disrupt this union; even all natural
thoughts and feelings, however subtle and disguised by an
appearance of righteousness, destroy the union of the mind with
the heart, and set them in opposition to one another" (The
Arena, Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1991, p. 87). St.
Mark the Ascetic advises, "If we no longer fulfill the
desires of the flesh, then with the Lord's help the evils within
us will easily be eliminated" (The Philokalia, vol.
1, London: Faber and Faber, 1983, p. 122, no. 181). St. Nilus of
Sinai instructs, "If you desire to pray in the Spirit,
depend on nothing carnal" (M. A. Novoselov, Mysticism of
the Church and Mysticism of the Western Confessions [in
Russian], Moscow: 1995, p. 59).

The New Age Movement, in complete contradiction to Orthodox
thought, is replete with teachings on "spiritualized
sensuality." Another example of this teaching, so foreign to
the traditional Orthodox school of thought, is the book, Marriage,
Sexuality, and Celibacy, a Greek Orthodox Perspective, by the
Greek Archdiocesan priest Rev. Demetrios J. Constantelos
(Minneapolis: Light and Life Publishing Company, 1975). Father
Demetrios describes physical relations in marriage in an almost
liturgical manner:

Sexuality, intimate embraces between
husband and wife and their subsequent union into one flesh is
a holy altar. The moment when love leads husband and wife
into a consummation of their beings is a holy moment and a
sacred event. Sexual intercourse in marriage is an act of
recreation, the restructuring of mankind in a microcosmic
form, the recreation of the unity of man. (p. 23)

To the uninformed reader the above quote may seem at best like
exaggerated poetic musings by Father Demitrios concerning marital
relations. On the other hand, the reader, even if not well-read
in patristic literature, might, through common sense and reverent
feelings, be offended by the inappropriate use of the expression
"holy altar" to describe this function. Those
acquainted with pagan or satanic cults which incorporate a carnal
"altar" into their rituals, will see the similarity
here. How do the Fathers differ from Rev. Demetrios in their view
of marital relations? St. Gregory of Rome (the Dialogist) wrote
to St. Augustine of Canterbury, England:

since lawful intercourse must be
accompanied by bodily desire, it is fitting to refrain from
entering a holy place [immediately after], since this desire
itself is not blameless. For David, who said: behold, I
was shapened in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive
me, was not himself born of any illicit union, but in
lawful wedlock. But knowing himself to have been conceived in
iniquity, he grieved that he had been born in sin, like a
tree bearing in its branches the sap of evil drawn up from
its root. In saying this, he does not term the bodily union
of married people iniquity, but the desire of such union.

when lust takes the place of desire
for children, the mere act of union becomes something that
the pair have cause to regret; this carries a warning
with it. For when the Apostle Paul said, If they cannot
contain themselves, let them marry, he at once added, I
speak this by permission, and not of commandment. This
concession makes it lawful, yet not good; so when he spoke of
permission, he indicated that it was not blameless. (Bede, Ecclesiastical
History of the English People, London: Penguin Books,
1990, pp. 85-86)

The famous Byzantine commentator on the Psalms, Zigabenos,
repeats the same thoughts:

Had Adam not sinned, there would be no
necessity for him to enter into carnal intercourse with Eve.
For sin gave birth to that form of union And although
marriages by the law became honorable before the Lord for the
sake of procreation, nonetheless in their essence they are
the offspring of sin Therefore it is not surprising
that David himself had the misfortune to sin, in a way
submitting to the necessity of nature. (Euthymius Zigabenos, Commentary
on the Psalter [in Russian], Montreal: 1986, p. 401)

St. Athanasius the Great comments on Psalm 50 in the same
spirit:

God's original intention was that we give
birth not through marriage and corruption; the violation of
the commandment introduced marriage as a result of Adam's
transgression, i.e., as the result of falling away from the
commandment given to him by God. (Collection of Works
[in Russian], vol. 4, p. 175)

The assumption that God created man and woman with the
intention of them engaging in carnal, sexual relations is faulty
and can lead to dangerous conclusions. God created mankind in an
unfallen, sinless, pure, angelic state. Carnal relations, as we
can see from the Fathers cited above, came about as a result of
the fall. Finally, there came a time in the life of the Old
Testament Church, when it was time for it to be replaced by the
New Testament, revealed by the incarnate Word of God, in Whom
man's nature was finally made whole. Man's wholeness was not
accomplished through the carnal union that occurred in blessed
marriages throughout the Old Testament, but rather man's
wholeness was accomplished in Christ, Whose incarnation occurred
without carnal relations.

The faulty understanding that from the beginning God ordained
sexual relations can lead, for some, to a justification of the
sin of fornication, because, supposedly, God created us with this
predisposition from the start. This then can lead to blaming God
for the sin that a fornicator falls into. This idea of placing
the blame on the Creator (or on nature) will be discussed below
in connection with the heresy of Sophiology.

Some contemporary Orthodox writers would tell us that the
above interpretations refer to the human state under the Old
Testament and now Grace has given a different meaning to
marriage. Now we hear of "sanctified erotic desires"
which are consummated upon a "holy altar." One would
expect the children of such sacred unions to be spiritually more
stable (New Testament) and less inclined to sin than King David
(Old Testament). Is this in fact so?

Father Demetrios goes on to claim that

in the
Orthodox Church sexual intercourse is described as synousia
which means community of essence, consubstantiality. Basil
the Great uses this very term to denote the relations between
the three persons in the Trinity. Athanasius and Origen
appropriate the same word to indicate that Jesus was born not
as a result of synousiasexual
intercoursealthough he shares in the synousia of
the Trinity. (p. 25)

The term synousia, besides its basic meaning of
personal, social contact, in the writings of the pagan historian
and philosophers Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle, can indeed
convey the meaning of sexual intercourse. In the period of the
New Testament, for example, St. Justin the Philosopher uses this
term in the following context in his thoughts on the incarnation
of Christ: "If He was to have been born by intercourse [synousia]
like all other firstborn, then why did God Himself say that He
would give a sign, which is not common to all firstborn" (The
Works of Saint Justin the Philosopher and Martyr [in
Russian], "Dialogue of Saint Justin with Tryphon the
Jew," Moscow: 1864, 84, p. 286). St. Basil did in fact use
this same term when speaking of the essence of the Hypostasis of
the Holy Trinity (Homily 24, 5). One should also note the use of
terms derived from the word synousia, for example, synousiastes,
among the Appollinarians, who held that in Christ the human and
divine essences (ousia) were united (syn) in one
essence (Encyclopedia of the Early Church, Oxford
University Press, 1992). St. Epiphanius of Cyprus employs another
meaning derived from the word synousia, i.e., synousios,
in order to indicate the Arian idea of a kind of participation of
Christ in the essence of God the Father (G. Lampe, A Patristic
Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1961, p. 1337). The same term is used
by St. Gregory of Nyssa in describing the Sabelian (heretical)
mingling of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity. All of the
above references illustrate the importance of understanding the
term synousia as used by the Fathers of the Church, and
the importance of a correct choice of theological context for its
use in modern theological texts (Lampe).

Having used this term in relation to the Holy Trinity, in no
way does it carry over this exalted meaning to, for example,
marital relations. On the contrary, it is strange to even try to
find a typological analogy between marital relations among
created human beings and the Divine existence of the Holy
Trinity. This use of human attributes to define God is more along
the lines of the Eunomian heresy which attempted to determine the
essence of God according to the attribute of
"unbegottenness." In the present case these new
theologians are attempting to determine the essence of God by
applying to it the attribute of "copulation."

Fr. Demetrios ends his book with the words: "A theology,
an attitude, or an institution must correspond to current needs
and experiences if it is to continue across the generations,
constructive and influential." Although his words are in
agreement with the contemporary philosophy he espouses in his
book, they are contrary to the Church's attitude towards
tradition. There is much in contemporary "needs and
experiences" which needs to "correspond" to
traditional Orthodox piety and not vice versa. The Church has for
centuries successfully called the faithful to repentance and
renewal, but only according to the path traced by the Apostles
and Fathers of the Church.

Ideas similar to some of those quoted above are found in the
article, "The Descent to God," by John Perkins
published in St. Vladimir's [Orthodox Seminary]
Theological Quarterly (vol. l, 40, no. 4/1996). The author
expounds his theme as follows: "Modern people often must go
down firstreturn
to the earthto
rich sensuous experiencein order to reconnect with their
animal natures, before they are fit candidates for
Christian transformation". He instructs: "We must first
come to a realistic experience and acceptance of our 'dirty'
impulses and the feelings that accompany them we
should not follow the temptation to reject anything prematurely
We should embrace our animal nature with love rather than
denouncing it We need to realize that sexual energy, rather
than being inimical to the divine, can actually connect us to
God" (p. 315). He then quotes another "lay
theologian," Philip Sherrard, who writes:

The energy which manifests itself as sexual
energy in man has its source in the deepest strata of their
being It is the energy of life itself, divine in its
origin and sacred in its nature, and not ceasing to be sacred
even where its use, through ignorance or malice, is perverted
or abused. (Philip Sherrard, Christianity and Eros, Essays
on the Theme of Sexual Love, London SPCK , 1976, pp.
76-77)

Any attempt to contradict or discredit (even patristically)
the above cited notions of this author are dismissed: "The
notionubiquitous
in the history of theologythat our animal natures,
including our genders and our sexuality, came into being, or were
superadded, as a result of the Fall is chaff that needs to be
sifted from the wheat of patristic tradition" (Perkins, p.
310). He credits Bishop Kallistos Ware for this original
expression concerning, "patristic 'wheat' and 'chaff.'"
One might inquire of Perkins which of the Holy Fathers should we
begin to "sift" in order to come to a correct
understanding of life according to the author? Perhaps we should
begin with St. Athanasius, who was quoted earlier and whose words
disagree with the present authors. Is this not pride and
arrogance to assume that one knows more than the Fathers of the
Church? What message does this convey to Orthodox believers? Will
this not lead to a Protestant approach where each interprets at
will, as the spirit moves him?

There is nothing unique in the theological innovations
expressed by these Orthodox authors. Taoism, Tantric Buddhism,
Hinduism and their offspring in New Age philosophy of our time
are replete with information and directions on how to become more
spiritual through "sacred sex." In an advertisement for
the new book by Richard Craze, The Spiritual Tradition of Sex,
this topic is explained as "a means of expanding and
exploring spirituality." A New Age course is offered over
the Internet, entitled, "Exploring Sexuality; A
Philosopher's Perspective," where the professor tells us
that "through all human history there has been a connection
between sexuality and spirituality. Why? Because something
intrinsically spiritual lies at the heart of the sexual
act." A New Age instructor in spiritual enlightenment, Chris
Griscom, makes the claim that "our sexual energy is the
closest energy to spirit. It is the closest energy to the divine
force " (cited from the Internet). A flood of books has
appeared under headings reflecting the themes and the spirit of
those writers to whom Archbishop Averky referred to as
"liberals and avant-garde theologians." The following
are titles of just a few examples: Eros Breaking Free:
Interpreting Sexual Theo-ethics (Gilson), Body Theology
(Nelson), Making the Difference: Gender, Personhood, and
Theology (Graham), Eros Redeemed: Breaking the
Stranglehold of Sexual Sin (White), and many others.

We encounter the above theme again in the chapter, "The
Mystery of Love," in the recently published book, The
Faith, Understanding Orthodox Christianity, An Orthodox Catechism,
by Clark Carlton. Mr. Carlton states the following:

In Christ the true nature of marriage is
revealed; marriage is an end in and of itself. To understand
this, however, we must first understand the nature and
purpose of man's sexual drive.

We have said that man's nature possesses
certain faculties or energies. One of these is the erotic
power, the power of sexual desire. In the animal kingdom this
desire guarantees the survival of the species. In human
beings, however, this desire is related directly to the
realization of the image of God within us. (The Faith,
Salisbury: Regina Orthodox Press, 1997, p. 228)

Expressions similar to these are very common among New Agers.
A New Age witch, Irena Tweedie, has said, "Sexual energy is
extremely important. Without sexual energy, a person can never
realize the Self." The term "Self" is frequently
employed by New Agers to "indicate the realization of the
god or goddess within" (New Age Lies to Women, p.
68).

Carlton continues by quoting Archimandrite George (The Faith, pp. 228-229):

Archimandrite George writes:

But whatmore
than anything elsemanifests the
imprint of God on the human soul is the power of desire
(eros) within the soul and the impetus which a
sanctified eros leads the soul in its movements towards its
divine archetype. The Saints, especially Maximus the
Confessor and Dionysius the Areopagite, understand this power
of eroticism as not referring simply to human sexual desire.
To put it better, the sexual urge is an expression of that
natural yearning which is implanted within us by our Creator,
and leads us toward Him (The Eros of Repentance, pp.
2-3).

The problem here lies in the authors confusion of terminology.
St. Dionysius the Areopagite used an understanding of eros
that refers to the very hypostatic love of God Himself:

Following this, St. Dionysius immediately defines the very
meaning of eros itself, explaining that he does not use
the term in the pagan sense like Plato, i.e., eros meaning
a human desire to achieve one's own perfection, but rather, he
uses it as a name of God:

And let no one think that we venerate the
name Love (erotos), in a manner contradictory to
Scripture (Logia). For truly it is foolish and
senseless, it seems to me, to pay attention to the letter,
and not to the sense of the discourse. This is not an
attribute of people who desire to understand the divine, but
characteristic of those who only accept sounds [i.e., assume
"love" (erotos) always refers to something
carnal] but do not allow the meaning of the sounds to
register in their ears and have no desire to know what a
particular expression might mean and how one might illumine
its sense with the help of other similar expressions . (ON
THE DIVINE NAMES, ch. 4, 11, p. 121)

Thus St. Dionysius speaks of eros as a Divine
characteristic of the supernatural existence of the Creator
Himself. St. Maximus the Confessor, in his commentary on this
work of St. Dionysius, explains the term as used by Dionysius in
this way:

he [St. Dionysuis] calls God the
Bestower and Parent of benevolence (agapes) and of
love (erotos). For having these within Himself,
He extended them outward, i.e., into the realm of creation.
And therefore it is said that God is love (I John 4:16), and
in the Song of Songs He is called love (Song 2:4), and
sweetness and desire (Song 5:16), which is love. (ON THE
DIVINE NAMES, ch. 4, 14, note 84, p. 129)

If one were to examine a dictionary of Greek terms defined
according to the usage of the Holy Fathers, for example A
Patristic Greek Lexicon, one would find the following
examples for the word eros: 1. love, defense of term as
synonym for agape;2. of
God's love; 3. of man's love towards God; 4. of love towards
saints; 5. for virtues (A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G.
W. H. Lampe, D. D., Oxford, 1961). On the other hand, concerning
the ancient Greek pagan usage of the word eros, we
find the following definitions: love, love of a thing, desire for
it, loves, amours, the god of love, Eros, Amor (An
Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, ed. Liddell and Scott's,
Oxford, p. 317). This simple study makes it clear how we should
understand the word eros as the Fathers used it. A
confusion of terminology could be easily avoided if proper
sources are employed to define terminology, at the very least for
the purposes of translating patristic texts.

Therefore, in any given exposition, if we follow the example
of the Fathers of the Church, it is imperative to determine
initially in what sense is the term eros used? In the
section quoted in The Faith, from the work The Eros of
Repentance, cited above, the "power of eroticism"
is spoken of as if St. Dionysius and St. Maximus understood it as
"not referring simply to human sexual desire." However,
according to the thought of the Fathers, it does not only not
"refer" to sexual desire, but in general has nothing
to do with sexual desirethe attraction towards the
opposite sex. The author of this work, The Eros of Repentance,
Archimandrite George, by means of this play on words nonetheless
concludes that sexual attraction is a natural desire, implanted
within us by God Himself, and leads us towards Him. This opinion
of Archimandrite George is not shared by St. Isaac the Syrian,
who writes: "There are three means by which every rational
soul can draw close to God: by burning faith, or fear, or the
Lord's instruction. And no one can draw close to God's love if he
is not led by one of these three means" (Collection of
Works, "Homily 58," Moscow: 1993, p. 307).

The "realization" of the image of God according to
Carlton's understanding actually leads us away from the salvific
way of the cross, planned for us by the Lord Himself. St. Abba
Dorotheos explains a quote of St. Gregory the Theologian:

'Thus let us honor the Prototype,
understand the power of the mystery and for whom Christ
died.' [St. Dorotheos explains:] The power of the mystery of
Christ's death is such: in so much that we have lost the
image of God within ourselves and through falls and sins have
been deadened, as the Apostle says (Eph. 2:1) God having
created us in His image, had mercy on His creation and His
image, and for our sakes became a man let us give [what
is due] to the Image having been created in the image. How
can we do this? Let us learn from the Apostle who says, Let
us cleanse ourselves of all filthiness of the flesh and
spirit (II Cor. 7:1). (Dorotheos of Gaza, Discourses
and Sayings [in Russian], "Discourse 20, Explanation
of Some Sayings of Saint Gregory, Which Are Sung With the
Troparions for Holy Pascha," Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra:
1900, pp. 195-196)

No such "sexual desire" was inherent in human nature
before the fall, as St. John Damascene explains:

the commandment go forth and
multiply does not necessarily mean through conjugal
union. For God could increase the human race by another
means, if people had preserved the commandment inviolate to
the end. (Saint John Damascene, "Exact Exposition of the
Orthodox Faith," ch. 24, p. 337, Collection of Works,
Saint Petersburg: 1913)

The famous desert dweller, George of Zadonsk, wrote to a
spiritual daughter who was inquiring about Adam and Eve and
marital relations:

May holy truth enlighten you to the
correct understanding of [Scriptural] words. I am pleased to
cite an example from the 18th Discourse of St. John
Chrysostom on the 1st book [Genesis] on your so unexpected
[for me] statement, in which, incidentally, St. John
expresses the following words: And Adam knew his wife Eve.
Mind you, when did this take place? After disobedience, after
the exile from Paradise; then intercourse began; before
disobedience, they lived like Angels, and nowhere is there
any mention of intercourse. Because previously we were not
subject to physical needs, therefore from the beginning
virginity was preeminent. But when, due to their weakness,
disobedience occurred, sin made inroads and virginity stepped
aside (retreated), as from those unworthy of so great a
virtue. Then the practice of carnal union appeared. Please
take heed to the great merit of virginity, what an elevated
and great deed it is, which is exalted above human nature and
needs." You can read further in the book of discourses
the correct explanation of the words cited, and see that it
is not by carnal union or intercourse that the human race
multiplies, but by the unfathomable power of God's blessing.
Is it clear to you now that there was no commandment about
carnal union but that it took place after the transgression
and disobedience which might not have occurred [i.e., could
have been avoided]?

With love I warn you about important
matters: do not engage in conversations with those incapable
of expounding properly. It is better to avoid curiosity and
not listen to those from whose tongues words fall like peas
from a sack." (Letters , Saint Petersburg,
"Letter #115," p. 110)

Views expressed in the chapter, "The Mystery of
Love," from the book, The Faith, and works of a
similar nature, return a person once again to a fallen state,
undermining the Christian ideal defined by St. Paul for all
Christians (since at that time there was no established monastic
state), But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it
remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had
none. But I would have you without carefulness. He that is
unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he
may please the Lord (I Cor. 7:29, 32).

Carlton continues:

Our sexual drive was given to us by God and
is good by nature; it is the misuse of that desire that is
sinful. There are two ways whereby our erotic energies are
sanctified and return to their proper state: celibacy and
marriage

Through the Mystery of Marriage, therefore,
man's sexual energies are properly channeled, and his ego is
overcome through mutual submission. In doing so, the couple
serves as an icon of Christ's union with His Bride, the
Church, participating in that union.

The natural fruit of this sanctified,
erotic communion is the begetting of children,

The family then images forth not only
the union of God and man, but also the union of love shared
between the persons of the All-holy Trinity. (The Faith,
pp. 230-233)

Is it traditional or even proper to allow here for any analogy
between "sanctified, erotic [sexual] communion" among
husbands and wives, and between God and man, or between the
"persons of the All-holy Trinity"? A scholar of both
patristics and psychology, Archbishop Chrysostomos of Oreoi
(Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili), has written:

Love within the domain of theology, that
is, when applied to God, is not love as we understand it in
the human sense. Needless to say, the relationships between
the Hypostases of the Trinity, too, cannot be understood in
terms of human relationships and the kind of love that passes
between two or more humans. Indeed, spiritual love is far
above and beyond the love that we find in human experiences
and interactions.

We should also note that the experience of
the highest form of Christian love, which leads to union with
God and an ecstatic state of spiritual communion with Him,
has no physical or material dimensions "
(Chrysostomos of Oreoi, Bishop, and Thorton, Father James,
"Love," Vol. 4 of Themes in Orthodox Patristic
Psychology, Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press,
1990, p. 65)

Although the present author, Mr. Carlton, is not as bold as
Laura Jones, John Perkins, or others cited earlier, nonetheless,
his terminology, images, and themes indicate a similar school of
thought. Modern man, aside from the theological incongruencies
indicated here, is far from a correct, patristic understanding of
Eros. An attempt to convey the patristic term Eros as
"erotic desire" can only be understood by the modern
reader as it is described in the Webster's Dictionary: 1. Of,
relating to, or promoting sexual love and desire: AMATORY. 2.
Dominated by sexual love or desire (Webster's II New College
Dictionary, Boston, 1995, p. 382). This carnal understanding of
the word "erotic" is suggested openly by these
contemporary theologians, for example: "One of these
[energies] is the erotic power, the power of sexual desire"
(The Faith, p. 228). Can we accept the carnal as
"sacred," or sexual intercourse as "union into one
flesh [as] a holy altar"? Are we to believe that
"sexual energy, rather than being inimical to the divine,
can actually connect us to God"? That sexual energy is
"divine in its origin and sacred in its nature, and not
ceasing to be sacred even where its use, through ignorance or
malice, is perverted or abused"? Where will such thought
lead the uninformed believer seeking salvation according to the
path indicated by Tradition? Is it possible that the consequences
for our flock of such theologizing are not foreseen? The very
foundation of our ascetic Orthodox world outlook is threatened by
such innovations. Could our pious Orthodox ancestors even a
generation ago imagine that a prestigious Orthodox journal would
print the words, "Modern people often must go down firstreturn
to the earthto
rich sensuous experiencein order to reconnect with their
animal natures, before they are fit candidates for Christian
transformation"? If anyone is offended by any of the above
ideas, is it only because they have not reached the spiritual
maturity of these "enlightened" theologians?

At the end of his book, The Faith, among the books
listed by Mr. Carlton in his recommended reading list(for the
advanced reader) is, The Sacrament of Love, by Paul
Evdokimov published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. In
Evdokimov's section on birth control he quotes Father V.
Palachkovsky:

In the opinion of the confessors, the
entire domain of the relations between husband and wife is
too intimate to provoke investigation by the priest the
latter not wishing to penetrate the intimacy where the unity
of two in one flesh is accomplished and where the presence of
a third is superfluous, even when invested with the
priesthood and if only by his questions. (as quoted in The
Sacrament of Love, pp. 175-176)

Evdokimov comments that "the opinion cited expresses the
Orthodox attitude very clearly and correctly The whole
person lives his eternal destiny between his conscience
and the eyes of God. No third party may intervene" (The
Sacrament of Love, p. 176). In these words the author has
successfully excluded the spiritual father from any
"interference" in this aspect of the married couple's
life. What a disaster such direction implies for the majority of
young people entering into marriage and raised in the hedonistic
culture around us which encourages every kind of sensuality as
normal and desirable. How can they discern for themselves, by
means of their conscience that which they have no tradition to
guide them in? If the author hopes for their growth towards
spiritual maturity (" the spouses' harmonious growth in
charisms"), how can they progress without any direction?

We have noted the influence of New Age philosophy, and a
misunderstanding of patristic terminology as factors contributing
to the development of the above teaching. There is yet another
possible source of inspiration for these new ideas, the heretical
teaching of Sophiology. There are a number of similarities
between Sophiology and this incursion of New Age philosophy that
has appeared in religious literature. We shall examine these
similarities below.

The basic premise of Sophiology is that there exists a fourth
"person" in the Holy Trinity, a female entitySophia.
One of the more corrupt ideas in the teaching of Sophiology,
spread by Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov, was to divide the simple
essence of God into two principlesthe male and female. Archpriest
S. Bulgakov made an analogy between this dual principle and the
image of God in man. In a 1935 Ukaz, the Moscow
Patriarchate made the following observation:

The danger of such musings about God and
their extremely corrupting influence is accentuated by
Bulgakov's desire to see a duality of sexes in the image of
God in man. Here one is not far from a deification of sex, as
it was understood by some of the gnostics, or so called
"spiritual Christians," or some of our secular
writers such as V. V. Rozanov. We are by no means saying that
Bulgakov taught this. But everything can be elaborated upon,
that which the teacher did not finalize, the student
(disciple) may finish, may draw conclusions, which would
horrify the teacher. ("Ukaz of the Moscow Patriarchate
to the Most Reverend Metropolitan Eleutherius of Lithuania
and Vilnius," as reproduced in Defense of the Sophian
Heresy of Archpriest S. Bulgakov [in Russian], by
Archbishop Seraphim [Sobolev], 2nd ed., Jordanville: Holy
Trinity Monastery, 1993, Appendix III, p. 4)

The heretical concept of a "duality of sexes in the image
of God in man" can lead to a "deification of sex,"
since if in God there is male and female and if in His image in
man there is also male and female, one may conclude that if male
and female unite in carnal relations they are reflecting the
Divine. These ideas originated with Bulgakov himself who desired
to find in the Divine and human essences male and female
principles. This is contrary to the teaching of the Apostles
which states that in Jesus Christ there is neither male nor
female (Gal. 3:28).

Bulgakov's teaching leads to the thought that the
responsibility for the fall of Adam and Eve can be transferred to
God in so much that God supposedly desired man to enter into
carnal relations, and therefore, man had to fall to enter into
this state, because in Paradise carnal relations did not exist.

The Moscow Patriarchate, in its 1935 Ukaz, explains
that by allowing for the thought that one could
transfer the responsibility for the fall onto the Creator, this
teaching weakens the consciousness of sin in a person, i.e., it
shakes the very foundation of the spiritual life. (Defense ,
Appendix III, p. 11)

A prime example of this weakening of the consciousness of sin
is when, after the fall, Adam tried to transfer the
responsibility for the fall onto God when he said: The woman
whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I
did eat (Gen. 3:12).

Another concept, popular among New Age theologians, that of
the "realization" of the image of God within us, i.e.,
that image being something like a particle of God (of the Divine)
placed in us from the beginning by the Creator, leads to the same
conclusion as Sophiology. Count Grabbe in his work against that
teaching summarizes:

Accordingly, it turns out we are
[supposedly] created not only in the image and likeness of
God but in part identical to Him. A piece of the Divinity
abides in us now, not only through Grace and the boundless
mercy of God (We will take up Our abode in him is
spoken of in the future tense), but in essence, independently
of our personal relation to God and His teaching. (Count Paul
Grabbe, On the Parisian "Theologians," as
reproduced in Defense of the Sophian Heresy of Archpriest
S. Bulgakov [in Russian], by Archbishop Seraphim
[Sobolev], 2nd ed., Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery,
1993, Appendix V, p. 7)

From the above theory, believed by many, concerning a particle
of God within us (uncovered by a process of
"realization"), which is in contradiction to the
teaching about the fate of unrepentant sinners in the future
life, we can understand one of the reasons for the widespread
permissiveness of our contemporary society. Based on this concept
of a particle of God within us, one can justify permissiveness by
saying that we were created that way, thus excusing our fallen
state by faulting the Creator. Count Grabbe concludes:

How can we reconcile the above view with
the teaching of the Church concerning the eternal loss of
sinners, when one rightly concludes that this part of the
Divinity cannot be sent to hell, and for it to be present at
the judgement as an accusatory element would be of no
benefit. Ultimately it is incomprehensible how sin could even
overcome a being who has within it a part of the Divinity. (Defense ,
Appendix V, p. 7)

If sin cannot "overcome a being who has within it a part
of the Divinity," then one can conclude that all the
actions of such a being, justified by one means or another, are
governed by this piece of God within the being's nature.

Finally, St. John Maximovitch, in his work against Sophiology,
comments that the concept of Sophia (i.e., the female) as
something abiding both in God and man, connects the natures of
the Creator and the created, destroying the clear distinction
between them. St. John Maximovitch states:

A kind of ladder [gradation] of essences is
established in which a clear distinction between the One Who
creates and the one who is created is destroyed.

the desire here is clearly to
equalize the divine with the human, to place not only humans
in a position of dependence on God, but God in dependence on
humans.

the new theologians have not reached
the conclusion of Valentine [a gnostic]. There is still no
basis to conclude that their teaching is based on his.
Nonetheless, the same foundations are laid there and herehuman reasoning suits its own purpose rather than
humbling itself to divinely revealed truths. (Saint John
Maximovitch, Veneration of the Mother of God and Saint
John the Baptist and the New Direction of Russian
Religious-Philosophical Thought, as reproduced in Defense
of the Sophian Heresy of Archpriest S. Bulgakov [in
Russian], by Archbishop Seraphim [Sobolev], 2nd ed.,
Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1993, Appendix IV, p.
40, 41)

In conclusion, all members of the flock of the Russian
Orthodox Church Abroad and all Orthodox Christians who desire to
save their souls and depart from the wisdom of this world should
recognize and reject all such notions as contrary to Holy
Tradition and the ascetic spirit of the Gospel. We are not
advocating a teaching hostile to marriage, as some might infer,
but rather we believe that not only in Church administration and
practice, but in all aspects of our Orthodox life let all
things be done decently and in order (I Cor. 24:40). We have
the grievous witness of the various Christian denominations
around us which have fallen under the spell of "liberated
theology." Where has this led them? What spiritual and moral
chaos they find themselves in because they did not check the
spread of ideas hostile and foreign to traditional Christianity
when they still had the opportunity to do so! Having harkened to
the spirit of this world they are now lost. Archbishop
Chrysostomos of Oreoi has written:

A new age of Orthodox scholars, prompted by
a foolish desire to reconcile the life of God with the life
of those enslaved by the flesh, has begun to distort the
nature of Christian love. Deviating from the Fathers and
embracing the spirit of sophistry to which we have referred
above, these same individualshappily
a small minoritywould have us
believe that human love, with all its psychological and
bodily dimensions, is somehow a reflection of spiritual love.
(Themes in Orthodox Patristic Psychology, p. 64)

The twentieth century has witnessed to the fact that it is not
from those who cling to Tradition and defend the Faith from
innovation that divisions have arisen, but that rather they have
arisen from those influenced by contemporary spiritual currents
and politics, who in their wide embrace have lost their way,
bringing many to ruin and threatening the very heart of
Orthodoxy.

As the ever-memorable abbot of Holy Trinity Monastery,
Archbishop Averky, noted, "Does our Church also have to go
down this fashionable path, 'in step with the times,' so as 'not
to be left behind'? What kind of 'church' would it be, which
would permit itself all this, or at least would look upon this
with all-forgiving condescension! No matter what is done by
apostates, fallen from True Orthodoxy, which is the ascetic
Faith, the Faith of struggle, we will not permit the
modernization of our Church, and we will not go 'in step with the
times!'" (Archbishop Averky, "We Will Not Go In Step
With the Times!", Sermons and Speeches [in Russian],
Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1967, p. 459).

From Orthodox Life, No. 3, 1997

Webmaster Comments

Fr. Luke's article is important because it brings to light some trends in Orthodox thinking that are antithetical to the Patristic consensus concerning marriage and especially sexuality. In sharp contrast to
some modern views, consider the following scholarly conclusions of the Serbian Hierarch, Bishop Artemije, a spiritual son of Blessed Justin of Chelije. At the end of his article "The Mystery of Marriage in a Dogmatic Light"
(Divine Ascent, Volume 1, Numbers 3/4 (1999), pp. 56-57) his Grace writes:

On the basis of all that has been said thus far, we are able to surmise the Church's teaching on Marriage and may concisely define it as follows:

1) The Church, adhering faithfully to the Lord Jesus, the Holy Apostles, and the Holy Fathers, puts virginity on a higher level than marriage, for "the
unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or virgin is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; hut the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (I Cor. 7:32-35).

2) Because of our weakness, the Church also allows marriage, blesses it, and hallows it. In this way she sanctifies the natural union of two "into one flesh" and renders it a Mystery-Sacrament. Conjugal relations within marriage are blessed only for the sake of procreation.

3) The Church condescends to our weaknesses even further and also tolerates relations within marriage that result from "lack of self-control" (in accordance with I Cor. 7:5-9), when such relations do not have procreation as their immediate purpose, but rather serve as medicine against immorality or adultery (that is, extramarital relations). When such is the case, one ought to realize and acknowledge his lack of self-control and to humble himself before the Lord. He should not expect to receive crowns for his weakness, but rather should hope that God will have mercy on him because of his humility. This condescension on the part of the Church, however, is not to be construed as a toleration of any prophylactic measures that would prevent the possible conception of a child.

4) The Church cannot condescend any further, and she considers sinful any means or method, whether natural or artificial to prevent conception and avoid procreation. For they who employ such means prove that they consider sensual pleasure the sole purpose of intercourse. From this it becomes evident why the Church does not permit Holy Communion to such individuals, nor to anyone else who does not conform to the Apostle's ordinance concerning self-control (I Cor. 7:5) and to the sacred canons of the Orthodox Church.*

* See Canon LXIX of the Holy Apostles and the commentary in The Rudder, 94. See also the following canons and the commentaries on them: Canon XIII of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Ibid. 230: Canon III of Dionysios of Alexandria, Ibid. 549-50; Canon XIII of Timothy of Alexandria, Ibid 672-73; Canon V of John the Faster, Ibid. 702.

Fr. Seraphim (Rose) of Platina also wrote about this subject:

The widespread confusion on this whole issue seems to come from a failure to
understand the real Orthodox teaching on sexualityit is not holy,
but neither is it evil. The Lives of Saints alone, without any Patristic treatises,
should teach us the Orthodox position: that sexual union, while blessed by the
Church and fulfilling a commandment of the Creator, is still a part of mans
animal nature and is, in fallen humanity, inevitably bound up with sin. This
should not shock us if we stop to think that such a necessary thing as eating
is also almost invariably bound up with sinwho of us is perfectly continent
in food and drink, the thorough master of his belly? Sin is not a category of
specific acts such that, if we refrain from them, we become sinlessbut
rather a kind of web which ensnares us and from which we can never really get
free in this life. The more deeply one lives Orthodoxy, the more sinful he feels
himself to bebecause he sees more clearly this web with which his life
is intertwined; the person, thus, who commits fewer sins feels himself to be
more sinful than one who commits more!

The Fathers state specifically, by the way, that Adam and Eve did not have
sexual union (nor, of course, eat meat) in Paradise. I believe Thomas Aquinas
says that they didwhich would accord with the Roman Catholic doctrine
of human nature.

(Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works (Platina, CA: St. Herman Press),
pp. 804)

For further reading consider the following works, which offer a slightly different view than that expressed by Bishop Artemije:

Foreward, Preface and Introduction to Marriage As A Path to Holiness, by David and Mary Ford (South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1999).

Related Comments By Hieromonk Patapios

It is particularly in his chapter on marriage, "The Mystery of Love" (pp.
227-233), that we see clearly the deviation from a Patristic standard and the ascendency
of personal interpretation and theological speculation that mark Mr. Carltons
catechism. Here, as in many other places, he frequently begins his comments with the
phrase, "according to the Fathers...." Yet, in almost every instance, he fails
to name a single Church Father or to cite a single Patristic source. Rather, in typical
Protestant style, he repeatedly quotes Scripture, frequently overlooking Patristic
commentaries on specific passages and offering interpretations of unknown provenance. As a
result, his evaluation of marriage, although coated with a veneer of Orthodox ideas,
remains at its core the glorification of conjugal union so comfortable to Roman Catholic
and Protestant minds. As in other areas in his catechism, he makes "Orthodox"
ideas that are at times incompatible and even inimical to our Churchs teachings.

For example, Carlton asserts, in one place (p. 228), that: "Marriage is an end in
and of itself." What Orthodox Father ever taught such a thing? Marriage,
"according to the Fathers," is a means to an end: viz., the preservation of
purity, which allows the Holy Spirit to dwell in a human body as in a temple. Saint John
Chrysostomos tells us: "We should seek a wife for this reason only, in order to avoid
sin, to be freed from all immorality. To this end every marriage should be set up so that
it may work together with us for chastity." Furthermore, even monasticism, the
pinnacle and boast of Orthodox Christianity, is not "an end in and of itself."
Suffice it to cite the words of St. Seraphim of Sarov: "Prayer, fasting, vigil and
all other Christian practices [including both marriage and monasticism], however good they
may be in themselves, do not constitute the aim of our Christian life, although they serve
as the indispensable means of reaching this end. The true aim of our Christian life
consists in the acquisition of the Holy Spirit of God."

Later, in his only non-Biblical reference to marriage, Mr. Carlton quotes from a book
by Archimandite George (Kapsanes), Abbot of the Gregoriou Monastery on Mount Athos,
published in English by a New Age press under the ill-advised title The Eros of
Repentance. Father George (unlike the author of our catechism) cites two
FathersSts. Dionysios the Areopagite and Maximos the Confessorin
characterizing eros as an urge implanted in us by the Creator to express our natural
yearning for union with Himan urge (a "desire"), of course, unrelated to
the sexual impulse, but, rather, one cleansed and transformed ("restored")
through repentance and human transformation. Carlton, wholly missing the spiritual nature
of Divine eros and confusing it with the fallen fleshly passions, misuses Father
Georges words and contends that the Old Testamental Song of Songs is "an erotic
poem that was accepted into the canon of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures precisely
because human eros is fundamentally a thirst for the divine" (p. 229). A similar
debasement of this same sacred text by the heretic Theodore of Mopsuestia was
appropriately condemned by Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus as "a story not fit for the
mouth of crazy women." Theodoret wholly rejected Theodores notion that the
subject of the book is that of carnal love between men and women, interpreting it rather
in traditionally spiritual and ecclesiological terms. Likewise, St. Gregory of Nyssa, in
his exegesis of the book, notes: "I hope that my commentary will be a guide for the
more fleshly-minded, since the wisdom hidden [in the Song of Songs] leads to a spiritual
state of soul."

Further developing his un-Patristic (indeed, anti-Patristic) views on marriage, Mr.
Carlton continues: "There are two ways our erotic energies are sanctified and
returned to their proper state: celibacy and marriage" (p. 230). Here, his ideas are
not those of the consensus Patrum, which never equates marriage and Divinity, let
alone in such a curious formula. Virginity is a higher state than marriage, as Scripture
and the Fathers attest. Saint Amphilochios of Iconium, for example, tells us that:
"Many among the greatest of men [i.e., the Holy Fathers] have praised virginity; and
it is truly worthy of praise...." He then proceeds to praise virginity himself, in
what are his celebrated words on the subject, as the highest form of Christian life.
Though they do not ignore its more virtuous side, the Fathers do not elevate the married
state to this level; thus, characteristically, Saint Amphilochios assigns the
accomplishments of matrimony to a secondary status among the Christian virtues. This is
not to say that marriage is somehow evil, "dirty," or wrong. To quote St. John
of Damascus, "We are not saying all this to decry marriage, God forbid.... We do,
however, know that virginity is better than good.... Virginity is as much more honorable
than marriage as the angel is superior to man.... Christ Himself is the glory of
virginity." Or, as Saint Jerome of Stridonium says: "The difference between
marriage and virginity is as great as that between not doing evil [passive morality] and
doing good [active morality]; or, to speak more favorably still, as that between what is
good and what is still better."

Mr. Carltons serious deviation from Patristic teaching is no where more clearly
expressed than in his misunderstanding of gender: "The difference between the male
and the female," he opines, "reflects the difference between the uncreated God
and the created world. The male images forth God and the female the world" (p. 231).
His astonishing assertions violate a Patristic dictum of long standing; that is,
that the Uncreated is wholly and utterly dissimilar from the created. No comparison
between them, let alone a comparison based on an image so fraught with potential
misinterpretations as the distinction between the male and female, can be made. Saint
Gregory Palamas expresses this principle with particular force: "Every created nature
is far removed from and completely foreign to the Divine nature. For if God is nature,
other things are not nature; but if every other thing is nature, He is not a nature, just
as He is not a being if all other things are beings. And if He is a being, then all other
things are not beings." We Orthodox do not express the distinction between males and
females, let alone that between the Uncreated and the created, by some kind sort of Taoist
"equal but opposite" principle, as though the created world were somehow the yin
counterpart of the yang of Uncreated Divinity. Mr. Carltons speculation
leads one in the direction of precisely such an absurdity and does great abuse to the
Patristic witness.

Finally, the idea that "...[t]he family...images forth not only the union of God
with man, but also the union of love shared between the persons of the All-holy
Trinity," while not incorrect per se, is not a Patristic maxim and can be
impiously understood. The Church Fathers consistently and properly speak of the love of
God in terms of virginity and purity. Thus, Saint Gregory the Theologian, in his In
Praise of Virginity, states: "Unwedded firstly is God.... The First Virgin is the
immaculate Trinity." His namesake, Saint Gregory Palamas, picks up this thread of
thought and expands on it in his New Testament Decalogue: "...[E]mulate the
Father, Who in virginity begot the Son before all ages, and also the virginal Son, Who in
the beginning came forth from the virginal Father by way of generation, and in these
latter times was born in the flesh of a virginal Mother; you, likewise, emulate the Holy
Spirit who ineffably proceeds from the Father alone [i.e., virginally], not by way of
generation, but by procession." Similarly, other Fathers contend that the Triune
Virgin, at the creation of the world, populated the invisible realm with Heavenly Virgins
(the Angels) and the visible world with multiform creatures springing from the virginal
earth. Likewise, the mortal body of man God formed from virgin soil, breathing virginally
into it an immortal soul. The virgin Eve he fashioned from a single source, the virgin
Adam, and after the Fall of mankind, the Virgin Mary repaid this womanly debt by giving
birth to the God-Man, the new Adam, the Virgin Jesus. Such is the Patristic
characterization of the Trinity and the Trinitarian acts of creation: images fixed in
virginity, not on familial primacy.

Excerpted from a review of The Faith in Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XV, No. 1